AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY TOWARD
A NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FOR M.I.T.
by
SPECK
LAWRENCE W.
S.B.
(Management), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(1971)
S.B.
(Design), Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(1971)
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF MASTER OF
ARCHITECTURE
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
June, 1972
Signature of Aut or
Detrt
......
f Architecture, May 13, 1972
nt
.......
Certified by
.
.........................
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
.0.0.
Chairman, Depatimenta
Commit ee on Graduate Students
Arlive
-2-
"AN EXPLORATIVE STUDY TOWARD A NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
FOR M.I.T.," by Lawrence W. Speck
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE ON MAY 12, 1972
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE.
ABSTRACT
This study is meant to be an exploration, not a recommendation. It examines, within a limited context,
various small scale physical configurations of spaces
which might accomodate life styles current or projected at M.I.T. and the organization of such small
scale configurations with certain supporting facilities
on a given site.
Three assumptions were made at the beginning of the study:
(1) The investigation would be framed primarily in the
context of new housing for undergraduate students.
(2) Such
a housing development would be located between Memorial
Drive and Amherst Alley just west of MacGregor House and
(3) would serve 250-300 residents.
As a preparation for determining the general nature
as well as the physical space requirements for the new
development two brief studies were made--one of the history of M.I.T.'s involvment in housing, and the other
an examination of current housing facilities available
to undergraduates at M.I.T.
The latter involved investi-
gation both of physical accomodations and of use patterns.
An evaluation was also made of the assumed site including
an examination of its potential as a location for support
facilities to serve the West Campus residential community
and even communities beyond.
Based on these brief inspections a determination was
made of physical requirements for a new housing development. Facilities were defined at four levels according
to the size of the group they were meant to serve:
(1) facilities for the community, (2) facilities shared
by the development as a whole, (3) facilities shared by
small groups within the development and (4) private spaces.
Brief descriptions were outlined for each facility with
attention to space requirements, access, relationship to
other facilities and potential uses.
The design approach which followed involved two steps:
(1) the organization on the site of large scale shared
7
-3facilities (both for the community and for the residential development itself) and general areas for more private
use according to access, contiguity, views, wind, sun
etc.; (2) the organization of small scale shared facilities
and private spaces to accommodate demands of various
living arrangements which could then be applied to previously defined general areas designated for these more
private uses.
THESIS SUPERVISOR:
Donlyn Lyndon
Professor of Architecture; Head of the Department
TITLE:
7
-4TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
5
Introduction
Chapter I
Chapter II
Background: M.I.T.'s Involvement
in Student Housing. . . . . . . . .
.
7
Current and Potential Living
Arrangements at M.I.T.. . . .
.
12
Housing Alternatives Presently
Available to M.I.T. Undergraduate
Students
. . . . . . . . . . . .
12
A.
B.
.
.
.
.
.
30
General Description of Physical
Facilities for a New Housing
Development . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
. .
39
A.
Facilities for the Community.
.
B.
Facilities Shared by the
Development as a Whole. .
.
C.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
39
50
.
Facilities Shared by Small Groups
Within the Development. . . . . .
.
56
.
.
62
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
65
A.
The Design Approach .
.
65
B.
Drawings .
D.
Chapter IV
.
Two Housing Prospects for the
Future.
Chapter III
.
Private Spaces.
Design. .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
68
Appendices
83
References
95
-5INTRODUCTION
This study is meant to be an exploration, not a
recommendation.
It examines, within a limited context,
various small scale physical configurations of spaces
which might accomodate life styles current or projected
at M.I.T. and the organization of such small scale configurations with certain supporting facilities on a given
site.
In order to create a framework within which the
study could be undertaken, several limits were accepted
without extensive exploration or evaluation of alternatives:
1.
Since M.I.T.'s present commitment in housing
is more clearly defined in relation to undergraduates
as opposed to other segments of the university community, the study was framed in the context of exploring
housing forms for that group.
Accomodations for other
members of the community were examined primarily in
their relation to a facility for undergraduates.
2.
A general project size was assumed, i.e.
a new development to accomodate 250-300 residents.
3.
A site was accepted--the parcel of land
on Memorial Drive just west of MacGregor House which
is presently designated by the M.I.T. Planning Office
for future undergraduate housing development.
i
I
-6It should be emphasized that acceptance of
these limits does not imply any evaluation of their
advisability.
All three points rely strongly on rec-
comendations resulting from the most recent comprehensive examination of M.I.T.'s role in university housing
which was written almost a decade ago (see Committee
on Student Environment, 1963).
New determinations of
(1) what responsibility the university has in the realm
of providing housing and (2) what effectiveness M.I.T.
has had in recent years in accomplishing the stated
goals of its residential system as well as
(3) an
evaluation of present housing policy are called for
before more concrete determination of size, mix, location and general nature of new facilities can be made.
The need for such a comprehensive study is apparant.
-7CHAPTER I
Background:
M.I.T.'s Involvement in Student Housing
When M.I.T. first contemplated moving from its
Copley Square location in 1902 one of the major arguments
given for seeking a larger new location was to "make it
possible to establish a dormitory system and to develop an
intellectual and social center for the students worthy of
a great institution."
(Prescott, 1954, p. 193)
That in-
tention found physical expression in 1915 when the first
M.I.T. dormitory, the present Senior House, was begun as
part of the initial construction phase on the Institute's
new Cambridge site.
According to S. C. Prescott in his
account of M.I.T.'s first half century, "this marked an
important step toward that broader social life which had
been the hope--much deferred--of the presidents since the
early days of President Walker."
(Prescott, 1954, p. 267)
In spite of this longstanding interest in an oncampus student housing system, however, it was not until
after World War II that M.I.T. actually became a predominantly residential university.
Prior to that time, finan-
cial and leadership problems had hampered the realization
of an M.I.T. residential community, and students residing
in Institute-owned housing, which included Senior House
(completed in 1916) -add the East Campus Parallels
(East
Parallel completed in 1927, West Parallel in 1930),represented only a small fraction of the total undergraduate
-8population.
Fraternity Chapters, the first of which had
been established in 1882, comprised an appreciably larger
portion of the student body and the "independent" or "commuter" groups who resided in apartments, rooming houses,
or with their own families, also formed a far larger group
than did the dormitory residents. (Committee on Student
Environment, 1963, p. 5)
It was, in fact, not until Baker
House was completed in 1949 and Burton-Conner was acquired
in 1951 that the dormitory system became the largest resource for undergraduate student housing at M.I.T.
Since the early fifties two major reports by distinguished committees have been made outlining a comprehensive residential program for M.I.T.
In 1956 the Commit-
tee on Student Housing (Ryer Committee) reported on its
study of problems related to developing "a residential system with the furtherance or the education of students as
its primary function."
(Committee on Student Housing, 1956)
In 1963 the Committee on Student Environment completed an
Interim Housing Report based broadly on the work of the
Ryer Committee but greatly expanded in scope and thoroughness.
From the work of these committees came policy deci-
sions for major additions and alterations in the M.I.T.
residential program.
The physical results of these deci-
sions were MacGregor House completed in 1970 and a major
renovation of the old Burton-Conner complex in 1971.
7
-9Today (academic year 1971-1972) about three-fourths of
M.I.T. undergraduates and about one-fifth of the graduate
students live on campus, i.e.,
in an Institute-owned dor-
mitory, a fraternity or the M.I.T. Student House.
undergraduates living on campus, about 60%
mitories.
Of the
reside in dor-
For the past decade, M.I.T. faculty and admin-
istration have readily accepted the fact that one of the
more important Institute responsibilities is to provide
on-campus residence for every undergraduate who desires
to live on campus.
(Committee on Student Environment, 1963,
p. 5)
Because of the Institute's location, M.I.T. students have always found available living space convenient
to the campus restricted.
(Lambrinedes, 1970, p. 50)
In
recent years as the number and size of schools in the Boston area has increased and as the "youth culture" of Cambridge has attracted many additional non-students to seek
housing in the area, the problem has become especially critical.
If M.I.T. does not accept the responsibility of pro-
viding housing for at least all of its students who desire
such accomodations it runs the risk of damaging the housing environment in the adjoining communities as students
increase
(or even continue) their demand on the existing
local housing stock.
This demand creates a seller's mar-
ket which increases rents and displaces the poorer
-10residents with whom the students are in competition, and
over whom they often have economic advantage.
A seller's
market encourages lower landlord responsibility, resulting
in dilapidation of the housing stock, increase in absentee
landlord ownership and other effects detrimental to the
community.
This cycle leads to the community's resenting
the university which is seen as taking much while giving
little in return.
Students often, therefore, end up in
a living environment which neither fulfills their needs
nor the university's social intentions.
It has been the stated Institute policy for many
years that "students should be given freedom of choice in
where they live."
p. 37)
(Committee on Student Housing, 1956,
Thus it is not M.I.T.'s intention at present to
prevent students from tapping non-Institute housing resources if they so desire.
Yet, at present, there exist sev-
eral groups of students who are normally not accommodated
by on-campus housing stock solely because of lack of facilities.
These students are forced to seek housing in the
local market whether they want to or not.
They include
transfer students, students who are dissatisfied with their
initial choice of on-campus housing but who cannot move to
more suitable on campus housing because their priority is
too low and students whose particular residential needs
are not met by the present housing types available at M.I.T.
i
-11Current projections indicate a probable increase
in the number of students excluded from the on-campus residential system due to lack of facilities in the near
future unless some new housing stock is added.
It is the
consideration of this factor that has led to the current
study being conducted by the Committee on Student Environment and to a projected study by the Office of the Dean
for Student Affairs seeking guidelines regarding the nature
of housing to be built by M.I.T. in the near future.
-12CHAPTER II
Current and Potential Living Arrangements at M.I.T.
A.
Housing Alternatives Presently Available to M.I.T.
Undergraduate Students
1.
Fraternities.
Approximately one-third of M.I.T.
undergraduates are currently housed in the 29 fraternity
chapters active at the Institute.
The fraternity system
has long been an important part of M.I.T.'s residential
program, offering not only an essential housing supply but
also a diverse set of social, academic and intellectual
living styles necessary to accommodate various interests of
M.I.T. students.
Fraternities solicit members from the incoming
freshman class in much the same way that "rush" is carried
on at other schools.
Names and addresses of new students
are distributed to all chapters early in the summer.
Through
literature and often through personal visits from fraternity upperclassmen incoming freshmen are acquainted with
the "personality" and amenities of several houses before
they come to Cambridge in the fall.
Residence Orientation Week, the week before school
starts, is planned to allow freshmen to visit the fraternities that interest them, as well as other residential facilities available on-campus.
All fraternity upperclassmen
are present to meet potential new members and to extend
i
-13"bids" to those who they would like to join.
At the end
of the week freshmen may accept any "bids" they may have
received or they can indicate preferences for an M.I.T.
dormitory and get assigned.
Many fraternities still have
a period of "pledging" (up to two terms after the bid is
accepted) which is a trial period to allow new residents
to reserve final judgement on whether they want to become
an active member.
During this period M.I.T. will guaran-
tee dormitory housing to any freshman who decides not to
become active in the fraternity.
After a freshman joins
a house, however, he loses that guarantee and because of
lack of space it becomes difficult for him to get into an
M.I.T. dormitory.
There is no characteristic life style of M.I.T.
fraternities.
They vary significantly in size, cohesive-
ness, degree of affiliation with national fraternities and
and with M.I.T., moral standards, social activity, academic
emphasis and physical amenities.
is usually 30-40 in number
Their membership, which
(although the extremes are as
few as 20 and as many as 70),
may be largely homogeneous
or may draw from as rich a variety of background as M.I.T.
has to offer.
Two fraternity chapters are co-ed.
Some
houses take great pride in being close-knit social cliques
with a strong group identity.
They support this identity
with many collective activities--parties, athletic events,
i
-14frequent group meetings, etc.
Other chapters take equal
pride in the independence of their members degrading any
sacrifice of individuality.
Their collective activities
may be kept to the minimum necessary to keep everyone fed
and keep the bills paid.
Most of the MOT.T. fraternities are located across
the river from the Institute in the Back Bay section of
Boston.
Four, however, are in Cambridge on Memorial Drive
and two are in Brookline.
They are generally housed in
large old rowhouses most of which were originally very lavish single family homes.
Several fraternity houses are
extraordinarily fine nineteenth century mansions highly
decorated in elegant French Imperialist style.
Many chap-
ters are very proud of their physical facilities as evidenced by their careful maintenance.
Most are also pleased
with their location even though it may require several daily
treks across Harvard Bridge.
The Back Bay is an exciting
place for a student to live--full of "old Boston" as well
as a bounty of students from Boston University and Northeastern University plus many smaller colleges, junior colleges and business schools.
Fraternities own their own houses and are responsible for upkeep and maintenance of them.
Although alumni
corporations oversee the business affairs of most fraternities the day to day running of the house is conducted by
-15its members.
Planning and buying for meals is done by in-
dividuals within the chapter although a cook is usually
employed for meal preparation.
Budgeting, billing, collect-
ing and payments are done by the chapter itself, as well as
preparation of financial reports to the house corporations.
In general, the system works very well and there is no lack
of responsible leadership in the fraternities themselves.
There are, however, some unavoidable instances of neglect
and misplaced responsibility which occassionally result
in disturbing inconveniences to fraternity residents.
Because of the deteriorating condition of some of
the older fraternity facilities and because there has been
some interest in establishing closer relationships between
fraternities and the Cambridge campus several studies have
been conducted since 1951 exploring the feasibility and
desirability of building new homes for fraternities on or
near the M.I.T. campus.
Land-use limitations, financing
problems, legal requirements and a reluctance among some
fraternities to sacrifice their present locations have hampered any large scale action of this sort. (Stratton, 1962)
It does seem, however, that in the very near future at least
two fraternities will build new homes in the West Campus
residential development.
2.
M.I.T. Student House.
Student House is a
-16co-operative co-ed living group with about 30 members.
It operates on much the same basis as the fraternities
except that cooking is done on a rotational basis by
the students themselves and the individual space allotment
for each student is perhaps somewhat smaller than at
most fraternities.
As a result of these factors, rents
in Student House are probably lower than any other type
of residential arrangement at M.I.T.
For this reason
M.I.T. gives names of incoming freshmen from low income
homes to the President of Student House who sends information bn the house to these students.
The co-operative
arrangement is very popular among residents and Student
House never has any trouble getting enough members.
3.
Dormitories.
About half of M.I.T.'s under-
graduates are currently housed in Institute-owned dormitories.
Like the fraternities, the dormitory system
offers a variety of living styles and involves a wide
diversity of students.
Incoming freshmen who do not receive bids from
fraternities during Residence-Orientation Week or who
choose not to accept the bids they receive are asked
to rank the M.I.T. dormitories according to their preference.
All freshmen must live either in a dormitory,
fraternity or Student House.
i
Each dormitory has
-17approximately one-fourth of its spaces reserved for freshman occupancy.
The freshman spots are generally evenly dis-
tributed throughout the house
(same number per floor or
entry) although they tend to be the least desired rooms
since priority is based on length of residence.
Freshmen choices of dormitories are satisfied as
optimally as possible by the Housing Office.
Once a stu-
dent is assigned to a dormitory it is up to the house government to determine his room placement.
Different houses
use different means, but the standard procedure is supposed
to be a random matching of freshmen and rooms.
This phase
of the system, however, is known to be greatly corrupted
and, in fact, if a freshman indicates a desire to live in
a certain area of a dormitory to residents of that area who
have some "pull," he will often "coincidently" end up there.
Moving between dormitories after initial placement
is only possible if one finds someone with whom to exchange
places of residence; hence, only about 35 moves between dormitories occur per year.
(Lambrinedes, 1968, p. 52)
Moving
within dormitories is, on the other hand, very common-especially movement within the same floor or entry.
Priority
systems governing such moves are developed by residents
themselves.
Since the primary factor in such systems is us-
ually length of residence, most students move to even slightly more desirable accommodations each year.
-18Any upperclassman may move out of the dormitory
system at any time he wishes.
In fact, because of the high
demand, room contracts are often waived and reimbursements,
prorated according to time of residence, are made to students wishing to move out in mid-semester.
At one time a
significant number of juniors and seniors took the option
of living off-campus.
been diminished.
Recently, however, this trend has
Of freshmen students living in Institute-
owned dormitories Spring Term '71 who returned to M.I.T.
Fall term '71, 98% returned to dormitory housing.
The
explanation for this development undoubtedly relates to
the significant improvement in dormitory facilities in recent years.
The 1963 Interim Housing Report had indicated
a desire for such a development by their statement:
"We
should concentrate on developing our facilities for those
who wish to take advantage of them; in so doing, it is our
belief that more students will in the long run choose to
live on Campus.2 (Committee on Student Environment, 1963,
p. 18)
For those who do move out, the step is almost cer-
tainly final since re-entrants to the system have low
priority.
The seven M.I.T. undergraduate dormitories fall
generally into three physical-form categories--corridor
systems
(East Campus Parallels, McCormick West and Baker
House),
apartment systems
(Burton-Conner, McCormick East
-19and Bexley) and entry/suite systems
House).
(MacGregor and Senior
Because of their significantly different physi-
cal layouts and because of the nature of the selection
process the dormitories tend to develop strong group
characteristics--even stereotypes. (Lambrinedes, 1968,
p.
57)
(See Appendix E)
East Campus Parallels consists of two buildings
which face each other across a large tree-lined lawn.
Each building contains
corridors.
five floors of double loaded
The location is convenient to classes which
may be one reason for the dorm's stereotype as home of
"nurds," "tech-tools" and "animals';"
i.e.,
students who
study constantly and have little social awareness.
The
image has perhaps slackened a little in recent years with
the major "face-lift" given to the building and with the
advent of coed living on some floors in 1970.
Rents are
among the lowest on campus, and there is a high concentration of single rooms.
are minimal.
Kitchen and lounge facilities
Commons meals for the approximately 420 East
Campus residents are available in Walker Dining Hall.
Senior House, the oldest M.I.T. dormitory is located on Memorial Drive beside and behind the President's
home.
It houses almost 200 students, male and female, in
a suite/entry system--ten students to a suite, four suites
to an entry.
Senior House is seemingly a collection of
-20-
friendly, fairly close-knit groups.
There are about equal
numbers of single and double study/bedrooms in the dorm
mixed with a few triples.
are specifically provided.
No kitchen facilities or lounges
Students are, however, allowed
to have hot plates and refrigerators as well as being able
to paint and in other minor ways alter their rooms as they
wish.
Commons meals are available at Walker.
Bexley Hall, an apartment-style dwelling opened
partially in 1963 and fully in 1964, was considered from
the beginning "at best, a stop-gap solution."
on Student Environment, 1963, p. 8)
(Committee
It was deemed inad-
visable to do major renovation on the building prior to
its opening because the Massachusetts Avenue site was considered inappropriate for residential development.
rooms are big with high ceilings and large windows.
The
Stu-
dents are allowed a great deal of freedom in making minor
alterations to the apartments.
The 130 or so Bexley resi-
dents are housed in about equal numbers of doubles, triples
and quads--all amply supplied with generous kitchen facilities.
The life style issfree, and detached.
Although
Bexley is the most centrally located dormitory facility,
it is probably the most removed from the mainstream of
life at M.I.T. which is exactly the way many of its occupants seem to want it.
mons meals in Ashdown.
A few Bexley residents take Com-
11
-21Baker House, located on Memorial Drive with most
of its rooms overlooking the Charles, is undeniably an
architectural work of great distinction.
The long, wide
winding corridors of the six floor structure are lined
on the river side by a mixture of single and double study/
bedrooms.
The opposite side of the corridor is more ir-
regularly marked by some doublesand triple study/bedrooms,
bathroom facilities and Aalto's distinctive fire stair
as well as occasional lounges which seem to grow out of
the widened corridors.
For twenty years the dorm was
easily the most popular facility in the system.
It was
the most social house and seemed to have a great deal of
cohesiveness--particularly among residents on each floor.
With the addition of MacGregor and the remodeling of
Burton-Conner, however, the attitude toward Baker House
has changed somewhat.
The lack of kitchens is a major
complaint and the general maintenance of the building in
recent years has been somewhat haphazard.
tions are in planning stages now.
Minor renova-
Most Baker residents
are sold on the corridor dorm system as an excellent means
of encouraging student interaction but many would personally gladly trade for the privacy of a suite with a few
close friends--especially during junior and senior years.
Baker has its own dining facility.
-22McCormick Hall is presently the only all-female
The ground floor contains sev-
dormitory in the system.
eral elegant living rooms, study rooms, a gym, a courtyard and a dining room.
Above the first floor are two
residential towers--each seven stories tall.
The west
tower, the earlier of the two, organizes a mix of single
and double study/bedrooms peripherally around a central
utilities and access core.
The twenty-two girls who live
on a floor share a small kitchen and laundry room.
The
east tower, built several years later, utilizes more of
an apartment style organization--a floor being divided
into two separate units, each housing eight to ten students with common bathroom, kitchen and living room.
McCormick on the whole is very elegant and expensive.
There is currently a great deal of discussion about converting one tower into co-ed living facilities.
Burton-Conner was for two decades a poorly organized, poorly maintained, but always lively, expedient
housing solution for up to 600 M.I.T. undergraduates.
Its long double-loaded corridors which, toward the end of
its days, were covered with student murals and collages
were the focus of many M.I.T. students' lives.
Its
"coffin singles," gang showers, and "walk through" bedrooms made the makeshift dormitory a real part of M.I.T.
folklore.
Strong floor identities were developed and
-23carried on over many years, adding to the legend that was
Burton House.
In June, 1970, the old Burton died and the complex
was gutted for renovation.
The new Burton-Conner retains
the form of the long corridors of its predecessor, but
none of the original character.
The long rows of doors
accessing student rooms were replaced by a few lockable
suite doors which access apartment type housing for from
five to eight students.
Each floor of Burton and each
floor of Conner are nominally an "entry" with a common
room and tutor's suite.
However, because of the strong
isolation between apartments little entry identity has
developed in the short time the facility has been occupied.
The intention of the new design was to allow for
a large degree of flexibility by providing "self-contained
apartments which could be used by various groups over the
years: men, women, undergraduates, faculty, married students, etc."
(Goody, Clancy and Associates, Inc.)
It was
also thought that "by putting the maximum space behind a
lockable suite door as the responsibility of a small group
of people, problems of theft and maintenance are minimized."
The apartment seems to work very well for small
close-knit groups of upperclassmen who enjoy the privacy
and independence of the system.
The ample lounges and
kitchens allow residents to do their own cooking
(often
-24co-operatively among the apartment group) and even to do
some group entertaining.
There have been some problems,
however, among freshmen and other "unattached" entrants
in the house.
Since housing policy dictates that availa-
ble spaces for freshmen must be evenly distributed among
suites, many new students find themselves "odd-man-out"
in an already closely-knit upperclassman clique.
They
further find their contacts with other freshmen severely
limited by the isolation of the apartments.
The old
"floor indentities" involving groups of forty to fifty
students which were so common in the original Burton
have almost completely disappeared.
The strong house
identity which also once characterized Burton seems as
well to have diminished.
The closing of the dining hall
and the independence of the apartments are certainly contributing factors in this regard.
Burton-Conner now houses just under 350 students,
one-tenth of whom are women (concentrated in one entry).
In addition to the apartments on the upper five floors
there are generous common spaces on the lower floors--a
study library, seminar room, a hobby shop, vending machines, laundry room and club rooms.
Only the ping-pong
room and laundry facilities seem extensively used at
present.
MacGregor House, new and expensive, is in many
-25ways the fullest physical embodiment of the goals of
M.I.T.'s recent residential policy.
Its 324 residents
occupy single study/bedrooms (with the exception of two
doubles) assembled by various means into suite and entry
sub-groups.
The house as a whole shares a dining facil-
ity, a large lounge
(dubbed the "T.F.L." by residents--
"tastefully furnished lounge"),
two seminar rooms, a
study library, a music practice room, a ping-pong/pool
room, a laundry, a darkroom, an electronics lab, vending
machines and a squash court.
Dining and laundry facil-
ities are used by a large percentage of the residents
while library, hobby and recreation rooms tend to be
supported by small but active core groups from within the
house.
The lounge and seminar rooms are notably little
used.
The four entries which make up the "low-rise"
section of MacGregor consist generally of six suites with
eight students in each suite.
The lower floor of an entry
includes the entry tutor's apartment and the entry lounge.
The upper three floors have two student suites on each
floor with access from the lower floor by a fire stair.
The eight students in a suite share kitchen and bathroom
facilities as well as a small living room.
The "high-rise" section is divided into five
entries--each covering three floors.
The skip-stop
-26elevator opens on the middle floor of an entry which includes the tutor's apartment, a large lounge, a student
suite plus two single student rooms not identified with
any suite.
The floors above and below, connected by an
open stairwell, each contain two student suites.
A "high-
rise" suite includes only six study/bedrooms with shared
kitchen, bathroom and living room.
Entries in the tower section are characterized by
a great deal more connectedness than those in the walkup section.
Although there are doors to separate suites
in the tower, they are usually left ajar.
case, the open stairwell provides an
This being the
adequate link between
suites on different floors and between suites and the entry
lounge such that circulation throughout the entry is unimpaired.
In the walk-up section, on the other hand, suites
are connected only via the fire stair so that their doors
must shut mechanically.
Suites are completely separated
from each other visually and communication within the entry
is hampered by many barriers.
The tower is generally considered to be the preferable place to live.
spectacular),
The views are better (often quite
there is indoor access to common facilities
downstairs and many details (trash disposal, etc.)
be worked out more conveniently.
seem to
Although in terms of
floor area per student the two systems are almost identical,
-27it seems likely that rent differentials will reflect the
preference for the high-rise section in the future.
4.
Off-Campus.
M.I.T. undergraduates living off-
campus fall into two general categories:
a.
Students who came to M.I.T. as transfers, spe-
cial students or greater Boston residents and who
have never been in the on-campus housing system.
These include students who, because they were not
required to live on-campus, found housing more
suitable to their desires elsewhere as well as students who, because the demand was high and their
priority was low, were not allowed to live on-campus and were forced to find accommodations elsewhere.
b.
Students who once lived in M.I.T. dormitories,
fraternities or Student House but who became dissatisfied with their accommodations and chose to
leave the on-campus system.
These include both
students who prefer the off-campus way of life for
reasons of cost, independence, social mix, etc.,
and students who would prefer on-campus housing,
but not the type available to them.
Among those
in the latter group are fraternity members who might
like to move into a dormitory but cannot due to
-28lack of space and residents of one dormitory who
would like to move to another but who cannot find
anyone willing to trade with them.
Altogether nearly 1000 M.I.T. undergraduates, or about
24%,
live in off-campus private housing. (M.I.T. Planning
Office, Fall, 1971)
In the last ten years satisfactory off-campus housing at a cost students can afford has become increasingly
difficult to find in the M.I.T. area.
This fact is re-
flected in the apparent slow movement of off-campus students to housing farther and farther from M.I.T.
Planning Office, Fall, 1971)
(M.I.T.
Whereas the apartments and
boarding houses of the Back Bay and Cambridge once accommodated almost all students' off-campus housing needs there
is now an increasing necessity to look to Somerville, Allston, Brighton, etc.,
for reasonably priced, decent housing.
The search for private housing is often time-consuming
and somewhat depressing.
Problems after occupancy related
to lease tenure, rent increases, parking, maintenance, etc.,
are frequent.
The fact that many students only want to
live in the Cambridge area nine months out of the year
places them in a particularly problematic situation Since
most rent contracts are for no less than one year.
A source of off-campus housing for many undergraduates is the M.I.T. affiliated but privately operated
-29Northgate Housing Corporation.
Northgate owns over 500
units of housing in the greater Boston area, 290 units
of which are in Cambridge.
Apartments vary widely as to
location, size of complex, size of unit, price and amenities.
Over one-half of the Northgate tenants are M.I.T.
students, faculty or staff--the remainder being primarily
long term tenants.
An M.I.T. student can normally be
assured of getting a one bedroom furnished apartment within walking distance of M.I.T. for between $150 and $175
if he applies in June for September housing, according
to Ms. Carol Bostick, Northgate Housing Corporation.
Northgate apartments are operated on a free market basis
within the M.I.T. community so that mixes of single
married
and
students and professionals are generally not
planned according to any particular scheme.
Many other "contacts" are available at M.I.T. to
aid students in finding off-campus accommodations.
The
M.I.T. Community Housing Office, for example, carries
current listings of apartmetts available in almost all
areas of the city.
In addition some academic departments
have devised informal means of encouraging students who
are vacating housing to pass their apartments on to new
students or other students within the department who are
looking for housing.
Bulletin boards and classified ads
in campus papers are other resources.
-30B.
Two Housing Prospects for the Future
It has been the policy of M.I.T.'s housing pro-
gram in recent years to provide as wide a diversity of
housing alternatives as there seems to be enough demand
to support.
The previous section which reviewed present
housing alternatives is an evidence of that policy.
As
was stated in the 1963 Interim Housing Report, "Each type
of housing posesses distinct qualities which collectively
satisfy the interests of our diverse student body... A
basic element of our residential philosophy is to give
our students the opportunity to choose their mode of living.
Giving them this choice creates a balanced system to
support their diverse interests which would not otherwise
exist."
(Committee on Student Environment, 1963, p. 17)
The following is a discussion of two among many
student housing alternatives which have been suggested
as potential options for implementation at M.I.T.,
at least
on a trial basis, ihan effort to more adequately meet
diverse housing needs.
1.
On-Campus Housing for Mixed Demographic Groups.
The present housing policy at M.I.T. segregates single
undergraduates, single graduate students and married faculty and graduate students into three housing categories.
Separate facilities are provided for each.
Recently
-31several studies have been conducted to investigate the
desirability of mixing housing for these three groups in
the same facility.
(See Lambrinedes, 1970, and Sommer-
Thermix of single and married graduate stu-
korn, 1971.
dents with single and married faculty was, in fact, suggested as a projected housing goal in 1968.(See M.I.T.
Planning Office, 1968, p. 34.)
a.
Resident Preferences.
In a series of interviews
held with students in Baker House in 1970 it was determined
that slightly under one-half of the undergraduates interviewed felt that a residential arrangement involving the
mix of faculty, students and administration should be implemented at M.I.T.
(Lambrinedes, 1970, p. 111)
Just un-
der one-third of a group asked if they would like a greater
degree of integration with graduate students, married students and staff answered that they would.
1970, p. 110)
(Lambrinedes,
A similar investigation of undergraduate
feelings in this regard was conducted at MacGregor House
as part of this study.
The results of the questionaire
distributed there can be found in Appendix A.
Thirty-four
percent of the respondents in MacGregor indicated a preference for a facility which housed undergraduates and
graduate students; thirty percent favored a mix of single
and married students; fortyrthree percent wanted to live
with students from other Boston schools.
Although these
-32findings do not, by any means, suggest an overwhelming
demand for housing facilities for mixed demographic groups,
they do suggest a significant preference among some undergraduates for such living arrangements.
Similar studies of desired neighbors have been
carried out by the M.I.T. Planning Office among graduate
staff members.
(See Appendix B.)
Of the nine demographic
groups offered for multiple response selection in that
sttdy, M.I.T. undergraduates were the least preferred.
About one-fifth of married student staff members and about
one-fourth of single student staff members indicated a
desire to live with undergraduates.
(M.I.T. Planning
Office, 1970)
b.
Ideological Issues.
Several social and philo-
sophical advantages have been suggested to result from
mixing undergraduate housing with housing for other groups.
Such an integration is seen by some to be closer to "real
world conditions and therefore a more appropriate stage
for development of human relations attitudes.
1970, p. 119)
(Lambrinedes,
Others suggest that such an arrangement
would reduce the present dichotomy between living and learning.
(Sommerkorn, 1971, p. 79)
The 1963 Interim Housing
Report did, in fact, suggest thAt contact between undergraduates and faculty members in a living situation was
a mutually beneficial arrangement:
"If student housing
-33is to support M.I.'T.'s educational objectives then it is
imperative that the faculty be strongly involved in the
program.
For in what better way may a student gain in-
sight into the professional estate and the values of those
who comprise it than through frequent personal associations
with members of the faculty . .
. Faculty members may also
come to know students, and perhaps understand them and
their problems better as a result of contact outside the
classroom."
(Committee on Studet Environment, 1963, p. 19)
The House-master/Tutor program outlined in that report
and presently in effect in the M.I.T. dormitory system is
based on the assumption that undergraduates should, ideologically, live with at least some graduate students and faculty members.
The current practice makes that mix fairly
sparce and indicates a special service to be rendered to
the undergraduate by the selected graduate students and
faculty.
The general indications are that students find
this integration of non-peers into their environment to
be "socially beneficial" although, as might be expected,
the extent of contact is somewhat limited. (Lambrinedes,
1970, p. 99)
Proponents of a residential system with a
larger degree of integration of non-peer groups suggest
that such an action would increase contact among various
groups and make that contact more informal resulting in
less isolation of undergraduates from other groups and
an even more "socially beneficial" environment.
-34There is, on the other hand, some evidence that
a degree of isolation of student peer groups serves a
beneficial purpose.
Howard S. Becker at Stanford, for
example, states that, "The solution to situational problems which comprise student culture are collective in
character.
They develop in a process of interaction among
people who share the same problems and have an opportunity
to interact with one another in the search for the solution to their problems . . . If students do not have the
opportunity to interact with one another extensively and
intensively, they will not be able to engage in the discussion necessary to arrive at a common solution .
. .
Solutions to student problems are typically not imposed
on the group from outside; they are developed by the group
itself in the course of its interaction."
p. 112)
(Becker, 1963,
Becker emphasizes the importance of a student
culture comprised primarily of peers which can act as an
effective context for experimenting with socialization
means, proving one's worth and gaining confidence for later
encounters.
He further states that among the students
with whom he was working "the major effect of student culture is clearly to give students an alternative view to
that offered by the faculty as to how they should act.
provides the basis for deviation from faculty norms of
student behavior.
(Becker, 1963, p. 13)
Thus, it seems
It
-35possible that any significant mixing of undergraduates
with other non-peer groups might have a detrimental effect
on socialization and independent thinking.
Certainly no one who has observed dormitory living
at M.I.T. for any length 6f time could deny the fact that
similar schedules, similar patterns of living, similar
problems and similar responsibilities serve as a unifying
factor even among students of varied interests and backgrounds.
To inject on any significant scale the diverse
schedules, patterns of living, problems and responsibilities characteristics of other groups might easily fragment
residents, depriving them of a solidarity which might be
beneficial.
2.
A Single Facility Composed of a Variety of
Living Arrangements.
The present dormitory system as des-
cribed above provides a variety of physical space arrangements which imply several rather typical social grouping
patterns.
Each facility, as noted, is largely character-
ized by one of these arrangements, i.e.,
Baker House is
made up of several large "hall" groupings of 50-60 stu-.
dents; Burton-Conner is made up of many small apartment
groupings of 5-8.
In the present self-selection process
of student placement an individual may choose the social
grouping pattern he prefers.
In so doing, however,
-36because of the relative homogeneity of facilities within
each house, he is also choosing to live with people who
selected the same living arrangement he did.
For example,
a student who values personal privacy strongly and who
is not very social or outgoing may well find that by satisfying his personal housing preferences he is also placing
himself largely among others who are equally individualistic.
The result of such homogeneity is the dormitory
stereotype and a rather unfortunate lack of variety in
student personalities within a livigg group.
Sim Van der Ryn and Murray Silverstein found the
same disadvantage in their study of dormitories at Berkeley.
They noted that if the dormitory contains all the
same Physical accommodations it tends to attract one kind
of person with one kind of life style--filtering out students whose presence adds diversity and a sense of dialogue
between various elements of the university community.
They
continue, "Mass facilities which house only a very homogeneous group result in poor communication among diverse
interests, destroying the integrity of the campus community."
The Committee on Student Environment in its 1963
report showed some cognizance of this issue when it made
the following statement in reference to architectural
treatment to promote social and cultural intercourse among
student groups within a single facility, "We believe it is
NKWMNINRNL-
-37not only possible, but most desirable to handle the architectural solutions in a broad variety of arrangements to
provide the necessary flexibility to satisfy the preferences of different individuals and groups."
Student Environment, 1963, p. 35)
(Committe on
The implications of
this statement could be interpreted to go far beyond simply providing several different sizes of discrete social
groups.
It could be taken to suggest a whole range of
living dispositions
with various degrees of community/
privacy and with various numbers of people sharing different amenities.
Such an arrangement might truly attract
"different individuals and groups."
Another benefit which would accrue from having a
large variety of living arrangements within a single
housing
facility would be a greater flexibility
to accommodate a student's changing needs as he progresses
through his undergraduate career.
The desirability of
maintaining an approximately equal mix of freshmen, sophotnores, juniors and seniors within a dormitory has been
validated in the minds of M.I.T. administrators over and
over again.
The recent study in Baker House bore out the
value of assistance received as a result of this mix.
(Sommerkorn, 1971, pp.334-35)
Yet it is inevitable that
a student's housing needs will change over time.
accommodate this change it has been suggested that
I
To
-38"dormitories need to be built which are 'everything to
all people,' that is, buildings which fulfill the needs
of both freshmen and seniors."
(Sommerkorn, 1971, p. 74)
A facility with the variety of living arrangements suggested above might come close to accommodating those
needs.
-39CHAPTER III
General Description of Physical Facilities for a New
Housing Development
A.
Facilities for the Community
Since the middle fifties M.I.T. has followed a
planning policy which calls for a concentrated residential
development in the West Campus area.
The unique amenities
of the 25 acre Briggs Playing Field and the long frontage
on the Charles River Basin make this area an extremely
valuable university resource and certainly an excellent
urban residential setting.
Long range plans for the West
Campus call for university related housing along both sides
of Briggs Field with underground parking beneath the open
space between.
The 200 foot wide strip of land between
the playing fields and Memorial Drive from MacGregor House
east to Westgate has been allocated to new undergraduate
housing.
As the last undeveloped stretch of the Charles River
Basin this site must be utilized with consideration for
many factors besides just the needs of those who will live
there.
Views of the site and views from the site are spec-
tacular and should be developed so as to benefit the communities surrounding in the best possible way.
As has been
stated, for the purposes of this study the piece of land
-40just east of MacGregor House will be assumed to be the
location of the next new residential house at M.I.T.
Several particular characteristics of that site, as opposed to the remainder of the frontage alloted to undergraduate residential purposes, make it especially important as a potential asset for the surrounding community.
For example, the site under discussion marks the
point of transition between Memorial Drive as a divided
trafficway to the west and Memorial Drive as a single 4lane artery to the east.
Along most the southern face
of M.I.T., Memorial Drive is a scenic, treelined, but
discouragingly wide buffer between the campus and the
river.
From the site mentioned to the west, however,
the thoroughfare narrows, becoming a smaller but, at
present, equally discouraging buffer.
The potential of
this closer proximity of the site to the actual river
bank than is typical downstream should not be ignored.
Another important characteristic of the site relates to the form of the river bank across from it.
The
Charles River Basin along its northern edge is typically
delineated by a vertical stone wall 8-10 feet high above
the water line.
Behind the wall is the land fill on which
much of M.I.T. is built.
A narrow strip of that land be-
tween Memorial Drive and the water's edge is reserved for
a bicycle and foot path which boasts a spectacular view
-41of Boston, Beacon Hill and the Back Bay.
The only variation of this form occurs at the west
end of the Basin where the stone wall gradually is replaced
by a gently sloping bank.
Even here the strip of land
between the water's edge and Memorial Drive is typically
fairly narrow.
The one point where the bank slopes down
to the water's edge and there is a significant amount of
land between the roadway and the river is directly across
from the site under discussion.
On a spring day during
crew season the approximately 100 foot deep grassy bank
is covered with spectators out for the races.
the difficult-#to-reach stretch is little used.
Otherwise,
This is
in contrast to the similar stretches of wide bank upriver near Harvard which can be reached by crosswalks with
traffic signals and which receive extensive recreational
use in all but the poorest weather.
It is also in con-
trast to the southern banks of the basin, both near the
Back Bay and near Boston University, where footbridges
over Storrow Drive provide access and where sunbathers
and people-watchers flock by the hundreds on pleasant days
during the spring, summer and fall.
Considering the large residential development presently occurring in the West Campus area and considering
the projected large scale development of the nearby Simplex site it would seem inexcusable to neglect the
UNVANVNJEWNL_
-42utilization of this stretch of bank as a valuable recreational resource.
The site under consideration should
certainly be developed with attention to this factor.
A third attribute of the site just west of MacGregor which should be considered in this study is its
relatively central location with respect to the West
Campus residential development--a factor which makes it
a potential location for commercial service facilities
for the area.
With the completion of Westgate II in
September 1972 the population of M.I.T. owned housing
west of Massachusetts Avenue will climb to approximately
2750.
At praesent the only really convenient commercial
facilities which service the population are a very small
grocery store for the exclusive use of Westgate residents
and the facilities in the Student Center--the Coop, the
Lobby Shop and Twenty Chimneys Cafe.
Additional services
of this sort seem to be needed now and the demand for them
will certainly increase with the advent of Westgate II
and any other new housing.
In the previously mentioned survey conducted in
MacGregor House as part of this study residents were asked
which of ten service facilities, ranging from a restaurant
to a study library, they would consider beneficial to have
in close proximity to their residence.
were to be ranked preferentially.
Multiple responses
The results of that
-43querry are listed in Appendix C.
The preferences indicated
express a significant desire for commercial facilities
presently unavailable or inconvenient not only for MacGregor residents but for many other West Campus residents
as well.
The most outstanding of these preferences was for
a conveniently located small grocery store.
Eighty-six
percent of the respondents in MacGregor considered a small
grocery store beneficial to have in close proximity to
their residence, and for 51% it was considered the most
beneficial of the ten facilities listed.
It is likely
that these figures would be even higher in other M.I.T.
houses since
MacGregor has a larger percentage of resi-
dents on regular commons meals than most of the other
dormitories.
The development of this preference is recent
and is a result of the fact that in the last year many
undergraduates in MacGregor, as well as in Baker, BurtonConner and McCormick, have begun cooking for themselves.
Beginning Fall 1972, in fact, only two of these four houses
will be able to support commons dining at all.
This trend
toward independent meal preparation is reflected in the
design of the new Westgate II which will provide ample
kitchens and no central dining facility, indicating that
most of its residents will do their own cooking.
As a result of these developments, by the fall of
-441972, a rather large new demand will have been created for
shopping facilities to support the new wave of independent
meal preparation.
It can be assumed that the building of
a new housing facility will add again to this demand.
These new demands, when seen in the context of the more
longstanding ones created by Bexley residents
(who have
always done the bulk of their own cooking) and by the
married student residents of Westgate, indicate a significant collective market for grocery supply in the West Campus area.
At present, most West Campus residents do their
food shopping at "Stop and Shop" on Memorial Drive--about
a mile from the nearest M.I.T. house.
Some residents of
McCormick, Bexley and Baker go to "Purity Supreme" at Central Square which is about the same distance.
Because the
large majority of West Campus residents have no car, shopping trips to these facilities must be made by foot and
must be made frequently since usually only one sack of groceries can be carried back per trip.
The inconvenience of
shopping facilities makes the responsibility of preparing
one's own meals doubly time consuming and annoying.
Some
solution to this growing problem is needed.
A second commercial amenity strongly supported in
the MacGregor survey was a cafe similar to the 20 Chimney's
Cafe in the Student Center.
L.
More than half of the
-45respondents indicated that such a facility would be beneficial to have near their residence (See Appendix C).
Both students who cook for themselves and those who take
their meals on commons need some place where they can get
a light meal occasionally--especially late in the evenings
and on weekends.
Twenty Chimneys serves this purpose well
for those who live near it, but it is fairly inconvenient
for residents to the western end of the campus.
To satis-
fy the needs of these residents several temporary measures
For example, before Burton dining
have been attempted.
hall closed residents of that house sporadically operated
their own snack shop in the evenings using the dining hall
More recently a "Mr. Pizza" truck has been park-
kitchen.
ing in the alley behind the dormitories several evenings
a week and has been doing a thriving business.
Vending
machines, although very unpopular, have offered a third
answer to the problem.
These solutions are sufficient to
stave off student hunger but they make little more of the
snack than just that.
Relaxed discussion over a meal or snack has been
widely recognized as a desirable part of any university
community.
The 1963 CSE recommendation that each house
be equiped with complete dining facilities reflected their
concurrence with this idea.
ment, 1963, p. 37)
(Committee on Student Environ-
The fact that economic circumstances
-46since that time have made such extensive facilities impractical does not diminish the advisability of having some
place where students can gather to eat and talk very near
their quarters.
The more intimate and casual environment
of a small cafe might even be more conducive to the ends
desired by the Committee on Student Environment than the
rather institutional atmosphere of a dining hall.
Such a cafe facility could serve several of the
dormitories and could, as well, be a welcomed asset for
the Briggs Playing Fields--providing a place for refreshment for the hundreds of athletes and spectators who gather
there on weekends in the fall and spring.
It has been the
stated goal of the Institute, as part of an effort to enhance the physical and cultural development of the areas
on and around the M.I.T. campus, to "enliven" the West
Campus area. (M.I.T. Planning Office, 1968, p. 6)
The
addition of this service facility would certainly be a
step toward that goal.
A fourth characteristic of the site under consideration which should not be overlooked in this study is its
potential for service to a larger community than that which
immediately surrounds it.
Located on Memorial Drive--a
major artery serving the Greater Boston area--the site is
easily accessible to people from many parts of the city.
It is prominently located--visible from great distance and
-47marked by changing physical features, i.e.,
the thinning
of the trees along Memorial Drive, a narrowing of the Basin,
the altered bank condition.
All of these features contri-
bute to make the site a prime spot for the sort of special
commercial activity which draws from a large geographical
area.
The site has, in fact, served this purpose in recent
years, providing a home for two large restaurants--"the
Clipper Ship" and "Joyce Chen's."
Such facilities in this
location offer much to the city as well as to the immediate
surrounds.
Suburban Bostonians find here, as in few other
locations in the city, a place to enjoy good food with a
f ine view of one of the area ' s greatest public assets--the
river.
Because the expressways and institutions have large-
ly monopolized the banks of the Charles, few other locations
offer this opportunity for public enjoyment.
It should be pointed out, as well, that few available
sites in the M.I.T. area could support such a restaurant facility.
Without a location which could draw patrons from
a larger area there would probably be no really good eating
establishment to serve the needs of M.I.T. people.
Presently
Joyce Chen's provides a rather special place for luncheons,
dinners, celebrations and even classes for students, faculty
and staff at the Institute.
The deletion of such a facility
from the area would be a disappointment to many including
-48the restaurants' neighbors--the residents of the West Campus area.
(Twenty-five percent of MacGregor residents sur-
veyed felt that it was beneficial to have a restaurant near
their residence.
(See Appendix C)
From the preceeding discussion of the site under
consideration four special facilities seem appropriate to
provide services not only for the residents of a new housing facility, but also for members of the West Campus Community, the M.I.T. community and even the Greater Boston
Community:
(1)
Community means to cross Memorial Drive.
This facil-
ity should provide access to the grassy bank on the north
western end of the Charles River Basin as well as the bicycle and foot path which is continuous on all sides of
the Basin.
It should serve primarily residents of the West
Campus and users of Briggs Field for the present, but some
use by residents of Cambridgeport and the new Simplex Development should be anticipated in the future.
Special
care should be taken to relate the crossing as strongly as
possible to the pedestrian walkway along Amherst Alley to
the north of the existing houses.
(2)
Community Small Grocery Store.
This facility should
serve the entire West Campus area replacing the existing
market in Westgate (The area now used by the Westgate market could be converted to a much needed common lounge space
-49for that building) and supplementing the minimal food sales
at the Lobby Shop.
It should be freely accessible via a
separate public entrance located near the pedestrian walkway to the north of the site.
It should also be provided
with a convenient service entrance.
The store should be
larger than the existing Westgate facility and should be
able to work either as a cooperative food clearing house
or as a regular food market.
(3)
Community Cafe.
Access to the cafe should be clear
from the pedestrian walkway and should be carefully related
to the playing fields, the house and the means to cross
Memorial Drive.
A small short-order/grill space with a
separate service entrance should be provided.
Provision
should be made for eating outdoors in nice weather.
(4)
Community Restaurant.
This provision is for lease
space to be planned in detail by the tenant.
Space should
be provided for a kitchen, dining areas, an entrance lobby
and a service area.
Major patron access to the restaurant
facilities should be from Memorial Drive although secondary
access from the north of the site would be desirable.
Park-
ing should be planned both for the immediate and for the
long range future.
The four community facilities outlined here, working in conjunction with a new housing facility, should create
-50an active and lively environment which could serve as a
minor focus for the West Campus area.
The presence of the
community facilities should give the residential facility
itself a special character as well as providing useful
and convenient services for its residents.
B.
Facilit'ies *Shared bythe Development as a Whole
The Committee on Student Environment in its 1963
Interim Housing Report gave two major rationale for the
present practice of maintaining complete houses of large
capacity.
(1) Certain economies are effected by spreading
the cost of providing fixed items such as lobby, desk,
study library, housemaster quarters, etc., over large numbers to reduce "per student" costs.
(2) A large house
population insures a cosmopolitan character and the existance of sufficient numbers to operate extracurricular
affairs such as athletic teams.
They further stated,
"After careful consideration and observation of experience
at M.I.T. and other institutions, we have concluded that
the optimum house size for new construction is in the range
of 250 to 300 students."
1963, p. 37)
(Committee on Student Environment,
As has been stated, for the purpose of this
study their research will be assumed to be accurate and
applicable to the present situation.
It was the opinion of the Committee on Student
-51Environment that each house should be developed as a
complete residential unit with ample provisions for recreation, eating and study, as well as for sleeping, within the building.
p. 1)
(Committee on Student Environment, 1963,
Several specific spaces were listed by the committee
as being desirable for use by the entire house.
A survey was conducted among residents of MacGregor
House as part of this study to evaluate student opinion
on the usefulness of providing the sort of spaces suggested
by the Committee on Student Environment as well as other
spaces for common use not projected by the committee.
results of that survey are listed in Appendix C.
The
On the
basis of the survey results and a careful observation of
the use of present common facilities in Baker, MacGregor
and Burton Houses it seems advisable that the following
spaces be included in a new residential facility:
(1)
House Entry Hall/Foyer/Reception Area.
This space
or series of spaces should be the information, business
and control center of the house as well as a transition
space between inside and outside (especially in inclimate
weather).
It should include a reception desk, mailroom,
attendant's office, public telephones, and bulletin boards
as well as a small lounge area for waiting or for small
group gatherings.
Men's and Women's public toilets should
-52be easily accessible.
The arrangement of these facilities
seems preferable in Baker House as compared to Burton or
The spaces should be positioned in such a way
MacGregor.
as to encourage people to stop and talk with their friends
on their way out of the house or to other parts of the
building.
It should also be the sort of space where a
bridge game might occur or where one could read a magazine
or newspaper while waiting for a friend.
Access to the
area should be from the pedestrian walkway to the north
of the site.
(2) House ping-pong/pool/pinball rooms.
Even though only
35% of the respondents to the questionnaire in MacGregor
indicated that they considered such a facility beneficial,
it seems fairly clear by the use of the game rooms in MacGregor, Burton and Baker that a space for ping-pong, pool
and pinball machines serves a useful socializing purpose
for some residents.
Especially near meal times and in the
evenings such a general recreation facility serves as a
place where students can take a short break outside their
immediate surrounds and yet convenient enough so that they
need not go outdoors.
The facility should be located near
other common spaces and should be sufficiently open to invite passers-by to linger for a moment.
Appropriate natural
and artificial lighting should be provided as well as an
outdoor view.
-53(3)
House Laundry Room.
Since almost all students do
their own laundry this facility is an obvious necessity.
It should be centrally located aid easily accessible from
all residents' quarters.
It should also be near the game
room, study library and entry foyer so that those who do
not wish to return to their rooms while their laundry is
in the machines will have convenient places to wait.
(4)
House Trunk and Dead Storage Space.
Although pri-
mary provision for storing residents' belongings should
be made near their own quarters some excess space is desirable to shelter items not frequently used as well as
to provide a depository for extra furnishings, etc.
Easy
access to the elevator should be the major consideration
in location of these facilities.
(5)
House Offices.
A set of rooms should be provided for
the use of the House Superintendent &nd student members of
the House Government.
These should be located near the
desk in the reception space and should be easily accessible
from the common areas.
(6)
House Study Library.
In the previously mentioned sur-
vey of MacGregor House residents
(see appendix C),
42% of
the respondents indicated that they considered having a
study library near their quarters to be beneficial.
Although
the facilities of this sort presently available in Burton
and MacGregor are not extensively used, it seems that those
-54who do use them consider them quite important.
The library
space generally serves two purposes: it is an alternate
study environment for those who tire of "the same four walls"
and it is a casual area for reading periodicals or other
light material in a relaxed atmosphere of peace and quiet.
Assuming that there will be indoor connection between the new residence house and MacGregor House there
should be no need for extensive "stacks" space in the new
study library.
The MacGregor library should adequately
serve both houses as a source of browsing and pleasure
reading material.
To divide the resources available for
this purpose would serve no function.
Several shelves of
general reference materials and a rather extensive periodical collection should serve as sufficient stock for the
new study library.
The space should be arranged so that
the area containing books and periodicals could be locked
separately from the rest of the study areas.
This would
enable use of the library facilities even when an attendant
is not on duty.
The library should be located near other
common facilities but should be carefully protected from
acoustical disturbance.
Natural and artificial lighting
should be carefully planned and non-active outdoor view
should be provided.
(7)
House Activity Rooms.
survey
The results of the MacGregor
(see Appendix C) indicate a small, but significant,
-55quantity of interest in the provision of small activity
spaces for largely individual use--music practice room,
computer room, dark room or hobby shop.
Because such
activities are to be encouraged among residents and because alternative spaces for these purposes are often
unavailable or inconveniently located with respect to the
site some provision should be made for them in the house.
Space allocations for these activities, however, should
reflect the relatively small demand indicated in the survey and the availability of some special activity spaces
in Burton and MacGregor which are not presently being
used to capacity and which might easily be shared.
Activi-
ty spaces in the new house should vary in amount of natural
light, view, etc., to accommodate the diverse needs of the
several activities which might take place there.
(8)
House Custodial Spaces.
A general support and storage
area as well as scattered janitor's closets will be required
for those who are responsible for minor repairs and maintenance of the building.
The support area should be located
near elevator access as well as near the service entrance.
Janitor's closets should be distributed fairly evenly
throughout the building.
(9)
House Linen Storage.
Many residents will undoubtedly
want to subscribe to the option&l linen service available
through M.I.T.'s housing system.
'A
A space for pick-up and
-56delivery should be provided.
The facility should have
easy access to the service entrance.
These nine house facilities should serve to give
the house some identity as a self-sustaining social and
physical unit.
They should aid in carrying out the day
to day business of the House as well as providing for
certain extra-educational and recreational activities unavailable among smaller groups.
Special care should be
taken to discourage pilfering and malicious damage in
these areas and to make them as easy to maintain as possible.
As a supplement to the fabilities listed, several
spaces presently available in MacGregor House which are
underused could be shared by the new house if proper connection were provided.
These include the ample house
common room, the dining room and related spaces and the
shipping and receiving facility.
Maximum effort should
be made to integrate these spaces into the plans for the
new house in such a way as to utilize them more effectively
and, in sc doing, to provide added amenities to residents
of the new house.
C.
Facilities Shared by Small Groups Within the Development
Several recent studies exploring university housing,
particularly singles housing, support the advisability of
-57-
allocating shared facilities and organizing patterns of
circulation in such a way as to create a "comprehensible
community" in which a resident can function more easily
as a social being than within the whole. (See Committee
on Student Environment, 1963, p. 36; M.I.T. Planning
Office, 1967, p. 38; Van der Ryn and Silverstein, 1967,
p. 41; Bush-Brown, 1962, p. 176; Farmer, 1965, p. 109;
and Riker and Lopez, 19691)
Identification with a small
environment and a domestic scale are seen as effective
means for nurturing contact among students, encouraging
common participation in group activities and creating a
collective identity which may result in both social and
educational benefits.
Experiments with such arrangements
at Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Washington
University and University of Chicago are often cited as
among the most successful recent university housing efforts.
A widely varying factor among housing types which
attempt an intentional physical grouping pattern is the
size of the groups created.
University of Chicago's Pierce
Hall, for example, uses as a primary group size the 83-man
house, while Harvard's Quincy House is based on multiples
of a basic four-man suite unit.
The rationale given for
group sized is usually based on some concern for socialization patterns or consideration for ideal numbers to support
some specific activity deemed educational or otherwise
-58worthwhile.
Clear definition of how these groups work
and what functions and goals are actually characteristic
among them, however, seems to elude analysis, making general statements about truly optimum social group sizes difficult at present. (See Farmer, 1965, p. 119 and Van der
Ryn and Silverstein, 1967, p. 41)
In addition, stated
student preferences of social group sizes seem to vary considerably, at least in the M.I.T. context.
In the survey
conducted in MacGregor, respondents were asked to state
the ideal number of people with whom they would like to
share an identity as a social group (see Appendix D).
No
single consensus can be drawn from the data.
In light of these considerations, the most successful physical subdivisions would seem to be those which combine physical groupings of various sizes and various degrees
of formality.
(Farmer, 1965, p. 119)
Into such a frame-
work organizational subdivisions can be injected to create
a system of social group sizes consistent with the specific
needs and desires of the residents involved.
The success
of such a system depends largely on the flexibility of the
physical means of potential subdivision chosen.
Overlapping
and ambiguous boundaries should be carefully planned.
A major criticism of existing university housing
using the social-grouping concept has been its failure to
provide this flexibility.
A
In Quincy House at Harvard, for
-59example, administrators have found the boundaries between
suites to be too rigid--isolating the 4-student groups in
a restrictive manner.
(Bland and Schoenauer, 1966, p. 21)
A similar rigidity has been noted as a disadvantage of the
M.I.T. Burton-Conner system of fairly isolated suites.
Van der Ryn and Silverstein in their study of dormitories
came to the following general conclusion in this regard:
A rigidly planned hierarchy of social groupings encourages a static-clique-ridden social
structure. This generates a self-fulfilling
prophecy. In the act of predicting his social
order the planner makes it difficult for var"
iations on that order to occur.... Design should
allow residents options as to which groups they
would like to belong. (Van der Ryn and Silverstein, 1967, p. 42)
Thus in planning a new house at M.I.T. special consideration should be given to circulation routes, patterns of
adjacency, room clustering and allocation of shared amenities which will maximize flexibility in the formation of
social groups.
The following are spaces which for reasons of economy, convenience or desire for social contact have been
commonly shared by small numbers of residents implying,
by use, a unit or group.
It is the arrangement of these
shared facilities which constitutes a major concern of the
previous section.
It should be noted that not all living
arrangements will involve utilization of all types of
shared facilities.
J
-60(1)
Living Rooms.
Some living arrangements in the new
house should provide residents with a small common living
room to be shared with from four to twelve other residents.
The space shbuld accommodate such activi-
(See Appendix D.)
ties as card games, small group entertaining, television
viewing, eating, "bull-sessions," etc. with special attention being paid to variations in size, view, finish, etc.,
so that each living room might be as different as possible
from others around it.
Living rooms should be located
adjacent to major access points if possible so that contact
with them will be frequent.
Noise transmission to more
private spaces should be kept to a minimum.
(2)
Kitchens.
Full kitchens including refrigerator, sink,
oven, cook-top and storage should be provided for all residents of the new house in groups varying in size from two
to eight residents.
(See Appendix D.)
Facilities should
be planned to accommodate considtent use for meal preparation.
If possible, kitchens should be located near a living
room or some other space where meals could be comfortably
eaten and should be isolated visually and acoustically from
private study/bedroom spaces.
(3)
Bathrooms.
Bathrooms should be provided for all resi-
dents in groups of from two to ten residents
D).
(see Appendix
Number of lavatories, water closets and shower/tubs
will vary with the number of residents served.
Each resident
-61should have access from his study/bedroom to a bathroom
without having to pass through a living room or a public
corridor.
(4)
Storage Spaces.
Local storage areas should be sup-
plied for all residents in groups of up to 15 students.
(5)
Common Rooms.
Common rooms should be provided for
all residents in groups varying in size from 20 to 50.
The spaces should accommodate such activities as group
meetings, parties, seminars, and discussions as well as
card games, "bull-sessions" and perhaps even ping-pong or
darts.
The common room should be located near a major
point of access serving the entire group for which the
space is planned.
Although the room should be large
enough to accommodate sizable groups, it should be so defined that it maintains a residential scale.
Maximum
acoustical isolation from private spaces should be maintained.
All small group spaces should be planned in such
a way that the individuals using them feel responsible for
as much of the environment as possible.
Precaution should
also be taken to provide adequate security so that "community property" can be left unwatched in small group
spaces.
A
-62D.
Private Spaces
Of primary importance in student housing at M.I.T.
is the provision of adequate private spaces for individual
study, contemplation, sleep or just undisturbed relaxation.
The spaces which serve these functions should also be able
to be used as places for small group discussion, entertaining and casual conversation.
They may further be
called upon to provide outlets for individual expression
and to become very specific "addresses" identified with
the people who inhabit them.
Thus design of the multi-
functioning private space presents one of the most important challenges of planning new housing.
Much comment has been made in recent years on the
importance of providing individual private spaces in university housing facilities, at M.I.T. as well as at universities in general.
(See Van der Ryn and Silverstein,
1967, p. 31; Katz, 1968, p. 443; Bland and Schoenauer,
1966, p. 19; Lambrinedes, 1970, p. 78.)
Single occupancy
study/bedrooms have been recommended for single students
over double occupancy rooms which previously were a widespread norm.
At present, a large majority of undergraduates
at M.I.T. seem to prefer an individual study/bedroom for
their private use.
Appendix D.)
(See Lambrinedes, 1970, p. 78 and
However, some students still prefer to share
a private room with a roommate.
L
Since there is no apparent
-63severe unavailability of either option in the present
housing system and since a desire has been expressed for
a wide variety of living arrangements in the new House,
it would seem reasonable to include both single and double occupancy study/bedrooms in a new facility.
The
ratio of singles to doubles should be approximately 4:1.
Possibilities should be explored for providing private
spaces which could be easily combined or separated to be
used as double or single rooms or which could be used, with
minor furniture adjustment, as separate studies and separate
bedrooms.
Private spaces should be capable of providing acoustical isolation from adjoining rooms.
They should not, on
the other hand, be so physically isolated from small group
areas so as to inhibit contact with those spaces.
Access
to private rooms should be protected in such a way that
residents may come and go without a feeling of being constantly observed by many neighbors.
Special effort should be involved in refining size
and dimensions of study/bedrooms to provide maximum efficiency and flexibility in use and furniture arrangement.
Economies in construction and furnishing resulting from
standardization of unit desigh should be considered.
The
Study/bedroom with its furnishings should provide a comfortable environment by themselves for those who do not wish to
L
-64significantly alter their personal environment as well as
providing a flexible back-drop for those who wish to
personalize their space.
-65CHAPTER IV
Design
A.
The General Design Approach
The general design approach involved two steps:
(1) the organization on the site of large scale shared
facilities (both for the larger community and for the
residential development itself) and general areas for more
private use according to access, contiguity, views, wind,
sun, etc.;
(2) the organization of small scale shared fa-
cilities and private spaces to accommodate demands of
various living arrangements which could then be applied
to previously defined general areas designated for these
more private uses.
Particular attention was paid in the first step
to creation of an area of intensified transaction for the
West Campus Residential Development.
The cafe, grocery
store and bridge over Memorial Drive occur at an opening
in the otherwise fairly rigidly defined southern face of
the east-west pedestrian street which forms the spine of
that development.
Potential for movement of people to and
from these amenities as well as to and from the residential
facility occur at several lev&ls within a partially enclosed
place.
Terraces, balconies, activity and lounge spaces
are organized around the place.
-66Three organizational patterns were utilized to
structure ordering of spaces in the second step:
(1)
A linear organization with access to small scale
shared and private spaces along an axis.
privae
pri-
prive
v
vate
shared
access
w
acces a
poin
shared
shared
pr:.vate
(2)
private
A nodal organization in which shared spaces create
a point at which subsidiary private spaces center.
private
private
access
shared
private
-67(3)
A discrete organization in which defined grouping
of shared and private spaces are clearly bounded.
shared
access
private
No attempt was made tc correlate specific life styles with
specific patterns of spatial organization.
The intent was
rather to provide a variety of spatial arrangements which
might be claimed by users in yet a greater variety of ways.
The linear pattern consists of a series of potentially private spaces of several sizes organized along a distributor with kitchen and bathroom facilities arranged at
fairly even intervals along it.
The potentially private
spaces could be used as single or double study/bedrooms
or separate study rooms, lounge rooms and bedrooms.
No
strongly defined boundaries occur within the organization
system.
The nodal pattern creates a focus consisting of
shared facilities servicing a group of from four to thirteen residents.
Potentially private spaces in the form
of single or double study/bedrooms are subsidiary to the
focal area.
The private spaces could be used, as well,
as separate study and sleeping spaces.
Boundaries of
nodally organized areas are more defined than in the linear
system but some ambiguity is still present.
The discrete pattern of organization creates a complete entity consisting of shared and private spaces.
In-
terior boundaries are secondary to a strong exterior definition.
Because the major public/private boundary is on the
exterior, continuity is greater within the unit.
As a
result the ratio of shared space to private space may be
somewhat higher than in the other patterns.
The structural framework into which these patterns
are organized was developed in such a way as to allow as
much flexibility as possible in mixing various living patterns within an economical general framework.
A system
of grouted masonry bearing walls with prestressed concrete
spanning elements was chosen for (1) its economy,
adaptability to structure of varying heights and
(2) its
(3) its
continuity with other building materials in the immediate
vicinity of the site.
A split-level framing system was used in order to
provide an intermediate definition between a flat plane
and a full floor change in level.
The purpose of such a
provision was to allow a greater potential for vertical
spatial differentiation within a "floor."
Support and
-69-
spanning members were framed in such a way as to provide,
by overlapping and by placement of stair openings, horizontal continuity as well.
Bearing walls were placed parallel to the long
dimension of the building system for three reasons.
First,
it was thought that because the structural framework and
the exterior treatment are two major expense factors in residential construction. -Some economy might be gained by using
the same system as a solution to both problems as much as
Second, such a framing system provided more
possible.
horizontal continuity than the normal framing pattern where
bearing walls cut the long dimension into definable segments.
Third, the framing plan allowed construction of the splitlevel system without requiring that any bearing wall be
loaded by half levels, thus easy construction by allowing the
masonry walls to be built by full floors.
The major flexibility intended by the use of a general structural system was in allowing a variety of use patterns initially without the expense of a variety of construcA secondary flexibility also considered was a
tion systems.
lack in altering living patterns in later years to accommodate
changing needs.
B.
Drawings
1.
Structual System--framing diagram.
2.
Small Scale Space Configurations--actual plan
'd
-70with diagramatic plan and section.*
A.
LINEAR L5--Linear pattern, segment for 5
residents.
B.
LINEAR--general linear pattern.
C.
LINEAR--linear pattern, segment for 7 residents.
D.
3.
COMMON--common space.
Small Scale Space Configurations--actual plan
with diagramatic plan and section.*
A.
COMMON--common space.
B.
DISCRETE D3s--discrete patterw small 3
resident unit.
C.
DISCRETE D31--discrete pattern, large 3
resident unit.
D.
DISCRETE D4--discrete pattern, 4 resident
unit.
4.
Small Scale Space Configurations--actual plan
with diagramatic plan and section.*
A.
DISCRETE D21--discrete pattern, large 2
resident unit.
B.
DISCRETE D2s--discrete pattern, small 2
resident unit.
C.
NODAL N4--nodai pattern, grouping for 4
residents.
D.
NODAL N6--nodal pattern, grouping for 6
residents.
-715.
Small Scale Space Configurations--actual plan
with diagramatic plan and section.*
A.
NODAL N9--nodal pattern, grouping for 9
residents.
B.
NODAL N13--nodal pattern, grouping for 13
residents.
6.
Diagrams of Four Sample Organizations of Small
Scale Configurations in 3 Floor Sections of
Structural System.*
A.
37 Occupants--28 in linear pattern, 9 in
discrete pattern.
B.
43 Occupants--41 in linear pattern, 2 in
discrete pattern.
C.
36 Occupants--12 in linear pattern, 22 in
nodal pattern, 2 in discrete pattern.
D.
34 Occupants--32 in nodal pattern, 2 in
discrete pattern.
7.
Actual Plans and Diagrams of a Sample Organization of Small Scale Space Configurations in
a 3 Floor Section of Structural Systems--35
occupants--7 in linear pattern, 26 in nodal
pattern, 2 in discrete pattern.*
8.
Plan of Total Development at 4
9.
Plan of Total Development at 9 Feel Above Grade.
Feet Below Grade.
10.
Longitudinal Section Through Total Development.
11.
Axonometric of Total Development.
-7212.
*
Note:
Site Diagram.
On all diagrams the lightest tone indicates
potentially private spaces; the middle tone indicates
somewhat more public areas used primarily for circulation; the darkest tone indicates shared spaces where
some intensification of activity might occur.
SHARED AREA- INTENSIFIED
ACTIVITY
SEMI- PUBLIC
ACCESS
.....
....
....
.....I..........................
I..
....
........
........
..........
..
....
...
..
.. ......
.................................
- -...l'
...................
...
.I.....
..........
......
...
.......
...
...
....
...
.....1
.....
.......
........
......
...
....
......
... ........
...
.... ...
....
..................................................
..
................
.................
.....
......
..........
........
.......
......
.......
.....
...........
.. ......
................
..............
...............................
........................
..............................
PRIVATE SPACE
...........
.........................
......
...
..
...........................
...................................
..........
..
......
...........................
..............................
.........
...............
.............................
............
....... ....... ...
.. ....... .................
diagram coding
key
G
'I'
/
j
/ I,
I'
I
"VI
I
/
I
I'
1/
j
FIRE JTAIR
'
xi
GROUTED
MASONRY
BEARING
WALLS
FIRE IAIR
V
I
j
7
I.
~~~~~1
I
I
i
I
H11
I
i
LP~
~~IIj
r
pg
1LJ
71
I
DISCRETE
--mum-"
D 3s
Ds*
I
r
I
I
.4
.uu~m
I
-j
L,
'I'
at'
I
I
I
1
2
2
---2
1-
1
A.
2
37 occupants
8 linear
29 discrete
260 sf/person
IL
I.
3
2
1
B.
43 occupants
2 discrete
41 linear
225 sf/person
3
1
C.
36 occupants
12 linear 22 nodal 2 discrete
268 sf/person
I
N4
--
2
1
D.
34 occupants
32 nodal 2 discrete
284 sf/person
N.
3
2
E. 35 occupants
7 linear
26 nodal
2 discrete
276 sf/person
I
MECH.
I STOR.
vI
I-LI-LL
HH!
Cl
DINING
RM.
4z>
Ldo
OA Fo--MET
MAINT.
DISH WASH
K
UNEXCAV.
GRILL
SERV.
GROCERY
KITCHEN
RECEIV.
UNEXCAV.
STOR.
MECH.
0
OFFICE
0
I
RESTAURANT
LIBR RY
DESK
I
MAC GREGOR
HOUSE
.tI
I
L
__
GAMES
.- ,---- ,~
__
U
*
N
9 q
E9
CO 138
u9
E5B
eBB
00000
]
N
RIGGS
FELD
L
CHARLES
RIVER
-83-
APPENDICES
r
I
-84APPENDIX A
Record of Response of Undergraduate Students in MacGregor
House to Questions Regarding Desired Neighbors
/
Source:
Survey Conducted through MacGregor House Committee 1972.
Question 1:
Question 2:
Question 3:
Desired neighbors in suite situation.
Desired neighbors in entry situation.
Desited neighbors in house as a whole.
Question
# of respondants
1
2
3
116
118
118
Other M.I.T. Undergraduates only
47%
36%
32%
M.I.T. Graduate Students
25
29
34
Married Students
19
23
30
Faculty or Staff Members
17
30
35
Students from Other
Boston Schools
32
41
43
Note:
Respondants gave multiple responses. Thus,
columns are not per cent distributions totaling 100%.
-85APPENDIX B
Record of Response of Graduate Student Staff Members to
Question Regarding DYesired Neighbors in Future M.I.T.
Housing Facility
Source:
M.I.T. Planning Office:
1970 Housing Survey:
Graduate Student, Technical Report, Table 13.2.
Married
04
44
OU
# of respondants
207
Sing-
Camb-
le
ridge
44I44-I-
M
U
)
156
U
153
169
M.I.T. Undergraduates
20%
19%
24%
25%
M.I.T. Single Graduate
Students
37
35
78
63
M.I.T. Married Students
without Children
73
81
70
76
Students from Other
Universities
41
45
59
54
Other M.I.T. Faculty
and Staff
70
79
73
76
M.I.T. Employees
41
42
41
43
Other Professional
People
64
69
61
62
Members of the General
Cambridge Community
43
39
39
38
Note: Respondants gave multiple responses. Thus, columns are not per cent distributions totaling 100%.
r
I
-86APPENDIX C
Record of Response of Undergraduate Students in MacGregor
House to Question Regarding Desired Recreational and
Sric-e Facilities Near Residence
Source:
Survey Conducted through MacGregor House Committee 1972.
Question:
In your opinion, which of the following are
beneficial to have in close proximity to your residence?
# of respondants
/
112
Small Grocery Store
86%
20 Chimney's Type Cafe
51
Restaurant
25
Drug Store
29
Study Library
42
Ping-Pong/Pool Room
35
Seminar Rooms or Class Rooms
16
Music Practice Room
22
Computer Terminal Room
19
Dark Room or Hobby Shop
33
Note:
Respondants gave multiple responses.
Thus,
columns are not per cent distributions totaling 100%.
7
-87APPENDIX D
Record of Response of Undergraduate Students in MacGregor
House to Questions Regarding Size of Groups Sharing Certain
Ameni1tTes
Source:
Question:
Survey Conducted through MacGregor House Committee 1972.
What is the ideal number of people with whom
you would like to share a
bathroom
# of respondants
I
107
?
living
room
107
kitchen
bed-
107
117
room
0
5%
0%
0%
79%
1
6
0
4
21
2
5
3
13
0
3
6
0
20
0
4
12
9
24
0
5
34
31
22
0
6
13
21
11
0
7
7
6
3
0
8
8
10
2
0
9
0
0
0
0
10
2
15
1
0
6
0
0
Above
-88APPENDIX D
Question:
continued
What is the ideal number of people with whom
you would like to be identified as a social group?
# of respondants
92
0
3%
5
4
10
15
15
11
20
12
25
7
30
15
35
12
40
13
45
50
3
Above
6
-i
'r
-89APPENDIX E
Data Used by Rates Committee 1972 as a Basis for Distribution of Residential System Costs
Source:
M.I.T. Housing Office
Variables and Values
House
Initial Occupancy
Net Useable Area/
Resident
(Ratings)
Judged
Quality
Total
Rating
Baker
1949
(4)
322
(2)
2
8
Burton
1971
(6)
400
(4)
6
16
East Campus
1928
(2)
341
(3)
2
7
Senior House
1916
(1)
275
(1)
1
3
McCormick
1963
(5)
469
(5)
6
16
MacGregor
1970
(6)
423
(4)
4
14
-90APPENDIX F
Space Summary
(1)
community Means to Cross Memorial Drive
(2)
Community Small Grocery Store
Floor Area:
1000-.nsf
Requirements:
-space for refrigerated food storage/display
-space for produce storage/display
-space for canned goods storage/display
-chebk-out area
-stock room
(3)
Community Cafe
Floor Area:
1000 nsf
Requirements:
-grill and service area
-seating at tables for 40 people
(4)
Community Restaurant
Floor Area:
Requirements:
(5)
2000 nsf
to be specified by tenant
House Entry Hall/Foyer/Reception
Floor Area:
1500 nsf
Requirements:
-40 sf bulletin board space
-reception counter, abour 10 ft. long with space
behind for 2 desks and chairs, sorting and
supplies
-mail boxes
-several vending machines
-couches, lounge tables and several other seating spaces
-drinking fountain
-91-
(6)
House Ping-Pong/Pool Rooms
Floor Area:
600 nsf
Requirements:
-spaces for one ping-pong table, one pool
table and several pinball machines
-chairs or benches for observers
(7)
House Laundry Room
350 nsf
Floor Area:
Requirements:
-6 coin operated washers and dryers
-about 6 running ft. of counter top
-about 6 running ft. of hanging space
-laundry sink and shelving
-several chairs
(8)
House Trunk and Dead Storage Space
Floor Area:
400 nsf
Requirements:
-several small individually lockable storage
spaces
(9)
House Offices
Floor Area:
300 nsf
Requirements:
-Superintendant's office with space for desk,
chair, filing, storage and typing table
-student offices with space for several filing
cabinets
(10)
House Study Library
Floor Area:
900 nsf
-92-
Requirements:
-8-10 individual.study spaces
-reading, lounge chairs for 15
-60 running feet of shelf space
-periodicals rack
-table and chairs
(11)
House Activity Rooms
Floor Area:
400 nsf
Requirements:
-several small spaces to accomodate undesignated activities, each equipped with plumbing and ventilation outlets and acoustical
isolation
(12)
House Custodial Spaces
Floor Area:
1400 nsf
Requirements:
-30 janitors' closets
-central storage facility with workbench and
racks for tools and supplies
-locker, dressing and washroom area
-temporary trash storage spaces
(13)
House Linen Storage
Floor Area:
400 nsf
Requirements:
-space for linen lockers accessible to residents
-adjoining space for storage and sorting
(14)
Small Group Living Room
Floor Area:
25-40 nsf per resident using the space-will vary with size of group
Requirements:
-space for couches, chairs, tables etc.
appropriate to number of residents using space
-balcony if appropriate
-93-
(15)
Small Group Kitchens
Floor Area:
5-15 nsf per resident using the space
will vary with size of group
Requirements:
,30.inch stove
-at least 2 ft. of free counter space
-sink
-34 inch opening for refrigerator
r3 drawer cabinet
-over-the-counter cabinets
(16)
Small Group Bathrooms
Floor Area:
20-25 nsf per resident using the space
will vary with size of group
Requirements:
-appropriate number of lavatories, water
closets and shower/tubs
-space for storage of toilet articles, towels
and bathroom supplies
(17)
Small Group Storage
Floor Area:
2-5 nsf per resident using the space
will vary with size of group
Requirements:
-storage for assorted articles from books,
clothes and personal articles to atheletic
equipment and hobby apparatus--easily dividable
(18)
Small Group Common Room
Floor Area:
10-25 nsf per resident using the space
will vary with size of group
Requirements:
-space for couches, tables, chairs and possibly game table
-water fountain
-2 unit bathroom for visitors
r
-94(19)
Private Spaces
Floor area:
115 nsf for single
living room
220 nsf for double
living toom
130 nsf for single
arate living room.
235 nsf for double
arate living room
room served by separate
room served by separate
room not served by seproom not served by sep-
Requirements:
per resident
-75 cu. ft. of wardrobe space for storage
of clothes, linens and other personal items
-50 running ft. of open shelving for books,
periodicals, stereos, redords, clock, etc
-wall space for hanging posters, note boards etc.
-desk 54" x 28" x 30" high (minimum)
-bed 72" x 36" (minimum)
-chairs for use at desk as well as for lounging,
reading
-95REFERENCES
Adelman, Howard, The Bids of Academe, Praxis Books,
Toronto, 1969.
Ashley, Myer, Smith, Inc., Worcester State Housing Program,
prepared for Massachusetts State College Building
Authority, Cambridge, Mass., 1971.
Becker, Howard S., Student Culture, in Lunsford, T. F.
(ed.), The Study of Campus Culture, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1963.
Bland, John and Schoenauer, Norbert, University Housing in
Canada, McGill University Press, Montreal, 1966.
Browning, K. C., Study of the Socialization of M.I.T. Undergraduates in Two Academic Departments, S. M. Thesis,
M.I.T., June, 1968.
Bush-Brown, Albert, Dormitory Design: Economical Housing
Is Not Enough, in Apartments and Dormitories, McGrawHill, New York, 1962.
Clark, B. R. and Trow, Martin, The Organizational Context,
in Newcomb, T. M. and Wilson, E. K. (eds.), College
Peer Groups, Aldine, Chicago, 1966.
Commission on M.I.T. Education, Creative Renewal in a Time
of Crisis, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., 1970.
Committee on Student Environment, Interim Housing Report,
M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., 1963.
Committee on Student Housing, Report to the President, M.I.T.,
Cambridge, Mass., 1956.
Cook, Nathan et. al., Status and Evaluation of the FacultyTutorial Residence Program at MacGregor House, M.I.T.
(internal document), 1970.
Cook, Nathan et. al., Residential Program Activities at
MacGregor House, M.I.T. (internal document) , 1971.
Farmer, Margaret, Dormitories, in Bricks and Mortarboards,
Educational Facilities Laboratories, Inc., New York,
1965.
Goody, Clancy and Associ., Inc., M.I.T. - Burton-Conner,
Description of Facility and Its Intentions, office paper.
-96Katz, Joseph et. al., No Time for Youth, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, Calif., 1968.
Lambrinedes, Margaret, The Organizational and Psychological
Effects of Student Housing on Students, S. M. Thesis,
M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass., June, 1970.
Leonard, George B., Education and Ecstacy, Dell Publishing,
New York, N.Y., 1968.
M.I.T. Planning Office, A Program for Undergraduate Men's
Housing, August, 1967.
M.I.T. Planning Office, Outline of a Program to Meet the
Housing Needs of the M.I.T. Community 1968-1980, April,
1968.
M.I.T. Planning Office, Statement of Goals and Objectives
for M.I.T. Housing, Excerpts of statements from various
Institute Reports, December, 1969.
M.I.T. Planning Office, 1970 Housing Survey Graduate Students
Technical Report.
M.I.T. Planning Office, Residential Location of M.I.T.
Students, Fall Term, 1971.
Miller, Ervigg H., Put a Behavorial Scientist on Dormitory
Design Teams, College and University Business, February,
1968, pp. 68-71.
Pace, C. R. and Baird, Leonard, Attainment Patterns in
Environmental Press of College Subcultures, in Newcomb,
T. M. and Wilson, E. K. (eds.), College Peer Groups,
Aldine, Chicago, 1968.
Prescott, Samuel C., When M.I.T. Was 'Boston Tech' 18611916, The Technology Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1954.
Riker, Harold and Lopez, Frank, College Students Live Here,
Educational Facilities Laboratories, New York, N.Y., 1961.
The Psychological
Rubin,,Irwin M., Freshman Socialization:
Institute,
the
and
Individual
the
Between
Contract
1971.
June,
543-71,
No.
Paper
Working
M.I.T.
Snyder, Benson R., Student Stress, in Lunsford, T. F. (ed.),
The Study of Campus Culture, University Microfilm, Ann
Arbor, Mich., 1963.
-97Sommerkorn, Ingrid N., Education and Student Residence-M.I.T.'s Undergraduate Residential Program Re-considered,
Education Research Center, M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.,
March, 1971.
Stratton, J. A.,
1962.
The Institute and Its Fraternities, M.I.T.,
University Facilities Research Center, High Rise or Low
Rise? A Study of Decision Factors in Residence Hall
Planning, New York, N.Y., 1964.
Van der Ryn, Sim and Silverstein, Murray, Dorms at Berkeley,
Educational Facilities Laboratory, New York, N.Y., 1967.